Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:10:29 -0400

> One thing we may have to care, however, is that the lack of
 > implementation might be a barrier of recycling the spec as a 
 > DS, since
 > we'd need to show interoperable implementations.

=> Good point. It would be good to get some clarification on whether
this is an issue though. I mean, considering that both RFCs are already DS.
My understanding was that this is more of an issue for a PS going to DS.

 > (I still don't understand what you mean by "things which are already
 > working", but anyway) you're correct in that we do not deprecate the
 > flags unless we have a clear and strong reason to do so.  In
 > particular, I understand we should not deprecate them just because
 > there is almost no implementation (especially at the host side)
 > depending on them.
 > 
 > I do not forget the original intention of the rfc2462bis work:
 > recycling the existing document as a draft standard.  The default
 > decision on a controversial issue should thus be conservative.
 > 

=> Agreed.

Hesham

========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is 
strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact
the sender and delete all copies.
========================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:17:15 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:10:29 -0400, 
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]> said:

> this is an issue though.

RFC2026 says in Section 4.1.2 that:

4.1.2  Draft Standard

[...]
   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.

My honest impression from this text is that RFC2462 should have not
advanced to a DS...I don't know (remember) why it was accepted, but I
suspect it was by an accident.  Considering the fact that an error can
always occur, I'd respectfully say the following is a bit naive:

> I mean, considering that both RFCs are already DS.

Of course, I may be wrong.  Hopefully someone can clarify how RFC2462
could advance to the DS level despite the fact that there were
probably no interoperable implementations regarding the M/O flags.

(Note: I'm particularly speaking about a general procedure, separately
from how we should deal with the M/O flags in rfc2462bis.)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]